'Not In The Best Interest': Bombay High Court On DNA Test On Rape Victim's Child After Adoption

The Bombay High Court made the remark while granting bail to a person accused of raping a minor girl and impregnating her.

The Bombay High Court on Thursday said conducting a DNA test on the child of a rape victim after adoption would not be in best interest of the kid, PTI reported. The Bombay HC, while granting bail to a person accused of raping a minor girl and impregnating her, said, "It is pertinent to note that in the factual situation since the child is given in adoption, the DNA test of the said child may not be in the interest of the child and future of the child."

The 17-year-old rape victim gave birth to a child and later put up the baby for adoption. A single bench of Justice GA Sanap sought to  know from the police if any DNA test had been conducted on the child.

The police informed the court that the child was put up for adoption right after birth. Police also said the institution concerned had refused to disclose the identity of the adoptive parents. The court observed that the institution's stand was reasonable.

In his bail petition, the man claimed that it was a consensual relationship and the victim, though minor, had an understanding of the same. However, the case lodged with the police said the accused forcibly had intercourse with the victim and impregnated her. 

The accused was arrested in 2020 by Oshiwara police on charges of rape and sexual assault under the India Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

In its order, the High Court said that it could not accept the argument made by the accused that it was a consensual act at this stage. It noted that though a chargesheet was filed, charges were yet to be framed by the special court.

The HC said since the accused had been languishing in jail since his arrest in 2020, bail ought to be granted, PTI reported.

Justice Sanap said, "The possibility of completion of the trial in the near future is very bleak. The accused has been in jail for 2 years and 10 months. In my view, therefore, further incarceration of the accused in jail is not warranted."